Evidence of meeting #140 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ouimet.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Now we have Ms. Yip.
You have the floor for six minutes, please.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today, especially Mr. Kukucha. I know that you're on west coast time, so it's quite early for you.
My first question is for you. Were you the one to receive the call from a whistle-blower? When was this exactly?
As an Individual
Yes, I did receive the call.
As per my opening statement, I'm just confirming it was on January 27, 2023.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Were you able to table the transcript of the call with this committee?
As an Individual
I have not seen a full transcript of the call. The SDTC staff provided me a snippet of that. I believe either SDTC staff has that, or, quite frankly, the whistle-blower should be asked to turn it over, because they were the individual who made that tape.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
You've stated that you immediately advised the board and legal counsel, at which point an investigation was started. Could you submit a timeline with dates to this committee?
As an Individual
The call happened on a Friday afternoon, I believe. I sought independent legal counsel that day and the following morning. I spoke to someone on the governance committee because of the sensitivity of this—there were three senior female executives and a board chair being accused, with serious accusations. I wanted to ensure that we managed this properly. We set up a small committee to discuss this. A special committee was struck immediately. I believe legal counsel was hired by Tuesday or very early the next week.
It all happened within three or four days.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Did you submit the findings of this investigation to ISED?
As an Individual
I was not in a position to submit them.
I believe the vice-chair of the organization met with ISED and submitted them, because ISED had a parallel investigation occurring at the time.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
The whistle-blower told this very committee last week that a large majority of the board—I think it was 80%—did not disclose their conflicts. The conflict of interest guidelines were consistently disregarded by board members and executives across every single one of the funds.
As former board members—I'm directing this question to both of you—do you think this is factual? Is that right? Can you elaborate?
As an Individual
I can only speak to my conduct.
I declared every conflict, real or perceived, both when I was appointed and when they occurred throughout my membership. It was only for two years that we were doing projects, because the full last year of my board work was involved with the special committee, and no funding was moving forward. I declared them all. The conflict policy was in place. My understanding is that it had been in place for years, so I was simply following the rules as they were laid out to me when I joined the board.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
As I said earlier, I saw that the members of the board of directors of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, who were in a declared conflict had recused themselves.
In various investigative reports, it was also observed that inaccuracies and irregularities had crept into the minutes, resulting in administrative lapses. This does not negate the fact that we recused ourselves.
When the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner investigated the allegations against me, he reviewed all the documentation and identified certain administrative lapses. He asked me and other witnesses to testify under oath to explain these shortcomings. He was satisfied that the directors involved in the files that were examined had recused themselves. This work was carried out after the work of the Auditor General of Canada, who did not take into account the Conflict of Interest Act, as she had indicated.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Before I go on to the next question, Mr. Ouimet, is there anything you want to finish remarking on from previous questions?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Thank you.
I will say this again: Although we are willing to answer your questions, there is no question, in my opinion, of repeating the conflict of interest investigation since, as far as I am concerned, it has been duly completed, in depth, by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
If members of the committee have detailed questions, which are, moreover, beyond my legal competence, I recommend that they turn to the Commissioner, who will be able to explain his study, his decisions and his conclusions.
I don't think anyone around the table, myself included, is legally qualified to explain all the nuances the Commissioner brought to his report.
If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
As an Individual
Could I add one supplementary piece of information?
We were given instructions to be very broad in what we considered a conflict. If we declared a conflict, it wasn't necessarily because we had a financial interest. It could have been because we knew someone at a company. In two instances—for me, at least—it was because I had looked at investing at some point in time in the previous five years but chose not to.
A lot of those conflicts do not relate to direct investment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
That is the time, Ms. Yip.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ouimet, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner did indeed conduct an investigation. However, I would like to highlight an important point, namely that the four witnesses interviewed as part of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's investigation are subject to our study on conflict of interest and have been declared at fault by the Auditor General regarding conflicts of interest. As parliamentarians, we take the liberty of conducting our own study and asking our own questions. So please respect our function if you want us to respect yours.
On that note, I'll ask my first question. The Auditor General determined that $10,372,330 was awarded in connection with not one, not two, not three, but eight cases where you did not recuse yourself to avoid a conflict of interest. Again, I'm quoting from the Auditor General's report. So, if you have an issue with the Auditor General's report, we have other problems.
Also, in an email dated April 2, 2021, sent to Ms. Lawrence and Ms. Verschuren, you informed them that you had accepted an offer to become a member of the board of directors of Recyclage Lithion, which offer was ratified on April 30, 2021. In your email, you stated that in accordance with the code of conduct, you would exclude yourself from any discussion at SDTC regarding Recyclage Lithion. However, Mr. Ouimet, the financing had been approved on March 9, 2021, three weeks before you sent your email.
Are you telling this committee that you had no connection with Recyclage Lithion prior to March 9, 2021, and therefore could not be in a conflict of interest?
September 23rd, 2024 / 11:40 a.m.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
The funding for Recyclage Lithion was approved by Sustainable Development Technology Canada in the summer of 2018, prior to my appointment. As for the payments granted in the context of COVID‑19, a conflict of interest was identified for all the directors who had taken part in the decision. Looking at the detailed information in all the reports, we can see that it was a difference of legal opinion between the commissioner and lawyers from outside firms. It was felt that the commissioner's position was the preponderant one.
However, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner reviewed all the documents and minutes, and dismissed the allegations against me. He did detailed work and didn't stop at certain points—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Ouimet, but my time is limited.
Please stop referring to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report. We've seen it, we've got it. Now we're asking our own questions. That's the job of this committee, which is independent of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Please answer our questions precisely, because we have a lot of them.
When you started out as a director of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, you already had a connection with Lithion Recycling.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
I provided advice to the company before it was approved for funding. I provided advice until the summer of 2018, and Sustainable Development Technology Canada approved its financing in the summer of 2018. I was appointed to the board of directors by the Governor in Council later, in November 2018, following an independent process. The decision regarding this investment had already been made. In addition, I informed the Governor in Council as well as management. I told them that, if this situation was unacceptable, I would withdraw my candidacy. I was told that this was not necessary, that it was normal and that Sustainable Development Technology Canada's enabling legislation required directors to have industry connections. I was told I'd just have to manage the conflict. I always recused myself, I never participated in any decision. In any case, the investment was decided—
Corporate Director, As an Individual
If, subsequently, certain changes to the contract—
Corporate Director, As an Individual
—required a board decision, I wasn't there.